1. ' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J. F.I.R. No.30 of 2002 was recorded at P.S. Bagarji on 28-7-2002. It was stated by the complainant that on the fateful day he along with his haries was going to cultivate his paddy crop when a group of 30 persons came there. Hakals were given Two co accused were alleged to have directly fired upon Muhammad Sachal Mirbahar and other two co-accused were alleged to have directly fired upon Sharif Mirbahar. Rest of co-accused are alleged to have resorted to aerial firing. Role of the present applicant is similar to that of co-accused who had made aerial firing. The present applicant remained absconder from 2002 till he approached the trial court for bail before arrest in January of this year. That application was dismissed by trial court vide order dated 12-1-2011. He approached this Court and interim bail was granted vide order dated 14-1-2011.
2. ' Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that other co-accused have been granted bail by the trial court vide order dated 16-8-2011 and role of the present applicant is same as that of co- accused persons. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted a statement with which he enclosed copies of case diary and two bail orders dated 16-8-2011.
3. ' The. Counsel while relied upon the case of Mitho Pitafi v. The State (2009 SCM R 299) wherein it has been held as under:-- "According to F.I.R., neither any role has been attributed to the petitioner nor his presence has been shown at the time of occurrence. Vide order, dated 18-2-2002, co-accused namely Jam Patafi has been released on bail by the learned trial Court but the concession of bail was declined to the petitioner on the ground that he was fugitive from law. Learned High Court of Sindh as well as learned trial Court has rejected the .Bail of petitioner on account of absconsion and not on merit. It is well-settled principle of law that bail can be granted if an accused has good case for bail on merits and mere absconsion would not come in way while granting the bail. We are, prima facie of the view that the learned. High Court has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective while declining bail to the petitioner."
4. ' He next relied upon the case of Mehmood Khan v. The State (2007 PCr.LJ 752) where a single Judge of Lahore High Court observed that if the case requires further enquiry the applicant could not be deprived of concession of bail. The learned counsel also relied upon the case of Hakim Ali v.
5. The State (2010 MLD 376) whereby following the case of Mitho Pitafi bail has been allowed.
6. ' Learned D.P.G though conceded on merits that role of present applicant is same as role of two co- accused persons who had been granted bail by trial court vide order dated 16-8-2011 submitted that the present applicant remained absconder. He relied upon the case of Deedar Ali v. The State (SBLR 2010 SC 464).
7. ' I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and have gone through the record.
8. ' As far as the case of Deedar Ali (supra) is concerned the honourable Supreme Court observed that accused duly armed entered the house with a group of 8 persons and attempted to kidnap a girl and went away and even if he did not fire any shot, the possibility of his involvement on account of section 34, P.P.C. Could not be excluded. Moreover the accused remained fugitive from law and did not join the investigations.
9. ' It is well-settled principle of law and does not need any authority any. More that a fugitive from law loses some of his rights both under procedural law and the substantives law. However an absconder from law does not loose all his rights and is not denuded of all his rights. Therefore a Court while dealing with the case of an absconder from the law should take a stricter view and proceed with far greater degree of circumspection.
10. ' In the present case the applicant's role is that he is alleged to be one of the member of 30 persons group. There is no allegation against the present applicant of causing injury to anyone. On the principle of rule of consistency, since the persons having similar role have been granted bail by the trial court, therefore as far as the merits of the case is concerned, the applicant is entitled to bail.
11. Since co-accused having similar role have been granted bail, it would be an exercise in futility to compel the applicant to be arrested first, approach trial Court with bail application and plead consistency there which aspect can well be gone into by this Court even at pre-arrest bail stage.
12. However considering the abscondance it would be proper that higher surety be demanded.
13. Consequently interim pre-arrest bail is confirmed subject to enhancement of amounts of surety and P.R bond from Rs.300,000 to Rs.500,000.